[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Roelof Meijer Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
Tue Feb 23 14:00:50 UTC 2016

Ed, all,

As far as I am aware, out co-chairs did not state any restrictions during the call as to who were allowed and who were not allowed to participate in the polls. Everyone was invited to make his/her position known, most did and that’s perfectly fine. To show that in the present tally is just being transparent and respectful of everyone’s participation

As we are all aware, our charter is clear on which votes actually count should that become necessary. The poll results show that a majority of valid votes is in favor of removing (2) and is against sending the report with (2) in it.

I am sure that the secretariat will present us with an overview showing that.
Let’s all now respect this outcome.



From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
Reply-To: "egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>" <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
Date: dinsdag 23 februari 2016 12:41
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results


I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .

The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.

The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.


Edward Morris

From: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM
To: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Dear all,

To ensure full transparency around the polling, the staff have reviewed the recording for the call and crosschecked the results. The Adobe Connect recording is available here for your viewing as well: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/.

Please note that the instructions regarding participation in the polls were as follows:

·      Anyone on the call was invited to participate in the poll (members & participants).

·      To participate, participants in the Adobe Connect room used either a red or green tick to respond to the poll question.

·      Those on audio-only could express their position over the phone.

·      After the polls, analysis would be conducted to assess participation from CCWG members (for the purposes of these results, the members’ names are in bold font).

The Chairs conducted four polls in a group that varied between 85-90 participants. The text used as the basis for the polls is Paragraph 72 of the CCWG report (see attached slide for the text as well as the 2nd bullet highlighted in red). The first two poll questions were based on objections and the second two poll questions were based on expressions of support.

Summary of results:

·      11 objections to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide)

o   (2 CCWG member objections)

·      27 objections to sending the report forward as it is currently, with the full text in Paragraph 72

o   (8 CCWG member objections, including all ALAC members)

·      36 support removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide)

o   (10 CCWG members supporting)

·      14 support sending the report forward as it is currently, with the full text in Paragraph 72

o   (2 CCWG members supporting)

Detailed results:

Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?

1.    Brett Schaefer (NCSG – Participant)

2.    Edward Morris (NCSG – Participant)

3.    Farzaneh Badii (NCSG – Participant)

4.    James Gannon (NCSG – Participant)

5.    Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP – Participant)

6.    Milton Mueller (NCSG – Participant)

7.    Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG – Participant)

8.    Robin Gross (NCSG – Member)

9.    Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO – Participant)

10.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG – Participant)

11.Eberhard Lisse (ccNSO – Member)

Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)?

1.    Alan Greenberg (ALAC – Member)

2.    Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board – Participant)

3.    Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board – Participant)

4.    Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC – Member)

5.    Chris Disspain (ICANN Board – Participant)

6.    David McAuley (GNSO – Participant)

7.    Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board – Participant)

8.    George Sadowsky (ICANN Board – Participant)

9.    Jorge Cancio (GAC – Participant)

10.Julia Wolman (GAC – Member)

11.Keith Drazek (RySG – Participant)

12.Leon Sanchez (ALAC – Member)

13.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board – Participant)

14.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board – Participant)

15.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board – Participant)

16.Olga Cavalli (GAC – Member)

17.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC – Participant)

18.Pedro da Silva (GAC – Participant)

19.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC – Participant)

20.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board – Participant)

21.Roelof Meijer (ccNSO – Member)

22.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board – Participant)

23.Samantha Eisner (ICANN Staff Liaison)

24.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC – Participant)

25.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board – Participant)

26.Sebastien Bachollet (ALAC – Member)

27.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO – Participant)

28.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff – Participant)

29.Tijani Ben Jemaa (ALAC – Member)

Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?

1.    AlanGreenberg (ALAC – Member)

2.    Annaliese Williams (GAC – Participant)

3.    Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board – Participant)

4.    Avri Doria (NCSG – Participant)

5.    Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board – Participant)

6.    Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC – Member)

7.    Chris Disspain (ICANN Board – Participant)

8.    David McAuley (GNSO – Participant)

9.    Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board – Participant)

10.Finn Petersen (GAC – Participant)

11.George Sadowsky (ICANN Board – Participant)

12.Greg Shatan (IPC – Participant)

13.James Bladel (RrSG – Member)

14.JuliaWolman (GAC – Member)

15.Kavouss Arasteh (GAC – Participant)

16.Keith Drazek (RySG – Participant)

17.LeonSanchez (ALAC – Member)

18.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board – Participant)

19.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board – Participant)

20.Mark Carvell (GAC – Participant)

21.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board – Participant)

22.Mary Uduma (ccNSO – Participant)

23.Niels Ten Oever (Participant)

30.OlgaCavalli (GAC – Member)

24.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC – Participant)

25.Paul Szyndler (ccNSO – Participant)

26.Pedro da Silva (GAC – Participant)

31.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC – Participant)

27.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board – Participant)

28.RoelofMeijer (ccNSO – Member)

29.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board – Participant)

30.Sabine Meyer (GAC – Participant)

31.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC – Participant)

32.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board – Participant)

33.Steve DelBianco (CSG – Member)

34.SebastienBachollet (ALAC – Member)

35.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff)

36.TijaniBen Jemaa (ALAC – Member)

Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)?

1.    Aarti Bhavana (NCSG – Participant)

2.    Brett Schaefer (NCSG – Participant)

3.    Edward Morris (NCSG – Participant)

4.    Farzaneh Badii (NCSG – Participant)

5.    James Gannon (NCSG – Participant)

6.    Jordan Carter (ccNSO – Member)

7.    Martin Boyle (ccNSO – Participant)

8.    Matthew Shears (NCSG – Participant)

9.    Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP – Participant)

10.Milton Mueller (NCSG – Participant)

11.Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG – Participant)

12.RobinGross (NCSG – Member)

13.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO – Participant)

14.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG – Participant)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/220fbcd5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list